RUSH: We've got, what, eight days here before the big election. And it really is, it's exciting, it's an honor, ladies and gentlemen, for me to be able to be part of this each and every day with you to do what we can, shape the future of this country for ourselves and our children, grandchildren, and future generations. Telephone number if you want to be on the program today, 800-282-2882.
I'm not gonna replay the Obama sound bites right now from his 2001 interview, that's seven years ago. That's not all that long ago, and he has not changed. Joe the Plumber brought it out of him. "We want to spread the wealth around." He's not changed. If you go back, if you listen carefully to what Obama was saying during these sound bites about the court and redistribution and the Warren Court was not radical enough, which in and of itself is a striking statement, what he basically is saying, ladies and gentlemen, is that he can't trust the courts to do this, he doesn't think the courts will tackle it. Now, if he gets 60 seats in the Senate, remember, the Democrats the last two times they had 60 seats in the Senate, we got Jimmy Carter and the economic malaise that he was responsible for, and then the time before that, they had 60 seats, we really got it. We got the Great Society. We got the War on Poverty. We got all of these entitlement programs that have demonstrably not worked, because had they worked the whole argument for fairness would have ended, because things would be fair. What is the wealth transfer now since 1964-'65? It has to be over six-to-seven several trillion dollars. You talk about redistribution.
The Great Society is a redistributionist scheme, and it has redistributed easily six-to-seven trillion dollars, from the haves to the have-nots, and yet the same arguments have only intensified. We're more unfair than we've ever been; people are in more poverty than they've ever been; the country's best days are behind; we've lost our promise. We're not what we should be; we're not what we once were; we're not what we can be. If it had worked, the last time that we tried unchecked Democrat power, then there wouldn't be any arguments the liberals could make today. The fairness argument would be out the window because everybody would be happy and everybody would be equal. But it's human nature, and it's been proven around the world, people who have things provided for them end up miserable, because even during such times there is massive redistribution, there are still people who are a cut above and work their tails off to overcome the limits that government places on them via redistribution, and that just makes the liberals even angrier.
So we gotta get even with them again, and again and again and again, to the point that there aren't enough of them to provide for all of the redistribution in the first place, and that's exactly where liberals want to end up, where there isn't enough to redistribute, and that's total chaos, and Obama says the court's not effective in bringing this around. He says it's gotta be done via community organizers, it's gotta be done by people like ACORN, it's gotta be done via mob rule, it has to be done via anger in the streets. And by God what are we hearing from Obama's people? If he wins there's going to be riots. If he doesn't win there's going to be riots. We're being told, several Obama campaign people, including James Carville have alluded to trauma out there. Now, this transfer of wealth since the Great Society, six-to-seven trillion dollars, does that figure include the multitrillion-dollar housing scam that led to the bailout? No, it does not. No, it does not. We're piling even more trillions on top of the Great Society programs in an effort here to equalize housing values and people who are being thrown out via foreclosure. It never works. The left knows it doesn't work. It's simply a vehicle for power.
There has yet to be a socialistic government that respects its people, and Obama says that the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties? Yeah, clearly states what the federal and state governments can't do to you. But it doesn't say what they must do on your behalf? It most clearly does, but again, that's not the right way to finish the sentence, Obama. If you're going to complain that the Constitution does not specify what federal and state governments can do to you, and then they conclude it by saying it also doesn't say what they can do for you. At any rate, let's just take one thing Obama believes in. Let's take abortion. He believes in infanticide. And, by the way, about this, this whole notion of abortion and life, the way to look at this, I think, in this campaign, to focus on abortion is the wrong thing. I mean, you could focus on Obama's infanticide and so forth, but when you talk about the Constitution and how it is a charter of negative liberties, stop and think.
The document that preceded the Constitution, of course, the Declaration of Independence: We are all endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, because without that, everything else is academic. If you're not born or if you're aborted, you don't have the chance for liberty, nor the pursuit of happiness because you've been murdered, you've been killed. So they put life first. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And they acknowledge that we are endowed by our Creator that, this is the yearning of our spirit, this is how we were made. The Constitution flowed from that. The Constitution established a government which would protect life and provide for the general welfare, not ensure. Everything stems from the respect for the sanctity of life. If that goes awry at any place in a society and then elevates and multiplies, then all the rest that follows is by definition weakened. So Obama is worried, he says the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, and yet the Constitution defends the whole notion that we all have of right to life, except it doesn't now.
This is my question for Obama, because of a constitutional right, Roe v. Wade, the right to have an abortion whenever you want one, for the most part, is now constitutional, even though the Constitution says nothing about it. And yet Obama is complaining the courts are not radical enough. The courts cannot change the Constitution effectively enough for him. So I would have a question. What can the Constitution do to babies that survive abortions, according to Professor Obama? Nothing. The Constitution, as it is currently interpreted, does nothing to protect babies who are born alive who were attempted to be aborted. So what is it that's not radical enough for him? What can the Constitution do for babies that survive abortions? According to Professor Obama, nothing. Constitution can't do anything. I don't know why in the world he would be so unhappy. And this was the fact back in 2001, Roe v. Wade was, just as it is today with Obama's vote on infanticide. So he's saying you can't sue your way through the courts to get redistribution of wealth even though we've gotten what he wants with the view of life via the courts and a lawsuit, essentially.
So you have to do it the Alinsky way, you have to take it to the streets, you have to get the community organizers out there raising hell and getting people so fed up with the dangers and the unrest that they give you what you want just to get you to shut up, or get them to shut up, as it were, and act peaceably. Now, we all know that we can have laws against abortion all we want or we could rescind Roe v. Wade all we want. The fact of the matter is women are going to have abortions just like we have a law against robbing banks and people are going to rob banks, we have laws against every crime and those crimes are still committed. The thing about abortion is to get to people's minds and hearts on this and understand that in a Constitution which has as its fundamental building block reason for existence, the promotion of liberty of the individual citizen. At any point where the Constitution is weak and fails to provide for that, then you've got trouble, and everything I believe descends from that. All the social unrest, all of the madcap, wacko, socially cultural perverted ideas we get from the left, they are made easier once the acceptance in a broad number of people is made, that certain lives can be eliminated based on the convenience to the living.
So the damage to the overall culture and the definition of why we are a country, why we are America, begins and it's a slow erosion, and we're in the midst of it now. And now we have the Democratic Party presidential nominee who hasn't the slightest interest in the protection of life. We have a Constitution which makes as its focal point that very premise, following the Declaration of Independence. That's not good enough. He looks at the Constitution as a charter of negative liberties. Now, granted, he's focused on race and slavery and so forth, but he's using that as his reason to be able to inflate the power of government and grow it to the point of infringing on anybody's liberty, according to his radical view of what is fair and what isn't fair and who should be in charge of that. But he doesn't dare say any of this because he would plummet to 30% in the polls after two days of speeches of this. So instead we get an Obama who's talking about what? Stop and think of this. We get an Obama who's talking about tax cuts for 95% of the American people.
We have the most liberal Democrat talking about tax cuts. He's lying, but he's talking about it. He's doing this so that he doesn't frighten people who are being told an alternative version of his truth and who he is. And while we have the Democrat candidate in some areas tacking to the right, such as, (doing impression) "I'm not going to take your guns, second amendment is fine with me, I'm Barack Obama. Ninety-five percent of Americans are going to get tax cuts." We have intellectualoids on our side saying that that kind of stuff is 1984 and it's over, that's old-fashioned. And yet the Democrat candidate, in order to sort of stop the hemorrhaging and do what he can to blunt the effectiveness of the charges of his extreme radicalism -- I mean this goes beyond liberalism now. This is extreme leftist radicalism -- has to tack to the right. And we've got the brightest wizards on the earth on our side of the aisle who are claiming that that's old hat, doesn't work. The recipe for landslide victories is there, and for some reason our own party seeks to ignore it and try to redefine it.